Obama Outbids Hillary to Purchase Votes
January 15th, 2008 at 12:01am Mark Noonan
Watch out, Americans! The Democrats want the White House, and they are willing to pay through the nose for it…well, its your nose they’ll pay through, but at least they are willing to negotiate a straigt-up purchase of our votes:
LAS VEGAS — Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama unveiled an economic stimulus package costing up to $120 billion. His campaign said the plan would put an immediate $250 in the hands of workers and seniors, and stems the foreclosure crisis and cover state budget shortfalls.
Obama, a senator from Illinois, called on the government to make available a $250 tax credit to 150 million workers to offset the payroll tax paid on the first $8,100 of earnings. He urged a further $250 tax credit per worker if employment declines three months in a row.
The plan would also bump up Social Security payments to seniors — who would not benefit from the credit based on income — with a one-time $250 payment, with another $250 if employment declines three months straight. The immediate relief would cost $45 billion, plus another $45 billion if the economy weakened.
Obama also pledged $10 billion to help families avoid foreclosures, $10 billion for states and local governments hit by the housing crisis and $10 billion to expand unemployment insurance. The plan, which would be financed by deficit spending, is slightly larger than the $110 billion package advocated by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday.
And if that doesn’t do the trick, then they’ll just promise more and more and more - can you imagine what they might be promising if this primary season extends into Spring? Goodness! They’ll have to really step out on a limb - $1,000 credit if bond yields decline three days in a row; $750 credit if the trade deficit increases two months in a row; $5,000 credit if voters seem to be turning away in disgust….and this is when the economy is in the fifth straight year of growth - can you imagine what they’d be doing if we were in a recession?
This is grossly irresponsible, but all too typical of Democrats these days. For all their talk of “change”, they are really just the same old song and dance…tax and spend, tax and spend. Its like they think there’s a Magic Money Spigot which will endlessly produce cash at no cost. Just amazing that in 2008 there can still be people this economically illiterate…
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Economy, Welfare
48 Comments
1. Buddy | January 15th, 2008 at 12:35 am
“The plan, which would be financed by deficit spending, ”
I’m sure that is music to the ears of all those who constantly write about Bush’s deficit and running the country into bankruptcy.
Heaven forbid Obama say the funding would come from stopping the Democrat parties pork barrelling.
2. Kahn | January 15th, 2008 at 12:39 am
Who does he think he his? Hugo Chavez? Oh wait.
3. bozo the neoclown | January 15th, 2008 at 5:06 am
yes, buddy, let’s talk about pork barrel spending. I’ve got a bridge to sell you…cheap. One thing though, it goes to nowhere, and is in Alaska but, you can get it at a discount since the owner needs defense fund money since the F.B.I. kicked in his door and rolled his home.
4. plainjane | January 15th, 2008 at 6:24 am
Can we bookmark this post until after President Bush sends out his economic stimulus package? If he doesn’t offer some sort of stimulus chances are a recession is near. If there is a recession in November the election will be a Democratic rout. We have Obama on record for $120 billion?
I assure you the only difference will be a billion dollars here or there and the fact President Bush’s will say his stimulus package will be paid for by tax cuts; financially irresponsible idiots. 1/20/09
5. neocon | January 15th, 2008 at 7:16 am
I will be the first to admit that Bush has been a disaster from a conservative POV on spending. Apparently the man never heard of a veto. However, that hardly suggests that we continue down this road and it is even more important now to elect a fiscal conservative and Romney, Giulani, McCain or Thompson would do.
Jane might want to consider that the tax “RATE” cuts have resulted in higher federal tax teceipts than ever. In fact, in one single day last November, I believe, the federal government took in more money than ever before in history. What that needs to be coupled with is spending cuts. The Dems won’t do that. They’ll raise taxes and spending.
1/20/09 indeed.
6. anarchist | January 15th, 2008 at 8:01 am
“This is grossly irresponsible, but all too typical of Democrats these days. For all their talk of “change”, they are really just the same old song and dance…tax and spend, tax and spend. Its like they think there’s a Magic Money Spigot which will endlessly produce cash at no cost. Just amazing that in 2008 there can still be people this economically illiterate…” - Mark Noonan
What is the federal government doing right now? Creating massive credit subsidies through open market operations, not to mention the litterally hundreds of billions in short term loans with “ink money”. That’s litterally creating money from a Magic Money Spigot.
The reason people are even worrying about an economic downturn is because there where all sort of misallocations of capital with credit subsidies. But the credit subsidies aren’t stopping, in fact they’re continuing to keep the bubble of debt propped up.
Most of Obama’s plan is a tax cut(a good thing), and an increase in social security. Since credit subsidies create inflation and people on social security are on fixed incomes, this is just returning some of their stolen purchasing power. I completely am against any sort of housing bail out.
My question is why you guys never complain about the litterally hundreds of billions of subsidies in “checkbook money” that are being used to bail out the big guys, but you think that tax relief and adjusting social security payment for cost of living increases which occurs ipso facto from government credit expansion, is some sort of evil vote buying give away?
7. neocon | January 15th, 2008 at 8:09 am
Anarchist,
I really don’t think you know what you’re talking about. Please explain in detail what you mean by:
…..Creating massive credit subsidies through open market operations…………
And explain in detail what you mean by:
……….all sort of misallocations of capital with credit subsidies…………
Returning credit “subsidies” (again, I need clarification) will not reverse inflation. Adjusting SS to the CPI will help seniors realize more spending power. I think you’re just regurgitating what you’re reading on some lefty blog and really don’t grasp it yourself. Prove me wrong.
8. anarchist | January 15th, 2008 at 8:33 am
neocon, an open market operation is when the federal reserve buys or sells securities with what’s called “checkbook” or “ink” money, that is basically printed money. They usually do this to hit a target interest rate on short term government bonds. Buying has outpaced selling ever since the great depression. But when the fed sells bonds and recieves money and pays bank that debt, that can be seen as money destruction. The fed creates and destroys all money, and all money is backed by government debt.
What I mean by misallocation of capital is that when the fed “prints money”, this drives down the interest rate. Any buisness that relies heavily on credit that is a marginal borrower(indifferent to borrowing and expanding) will be drawn in by the lure of cheap credit that will make higher profits. Of course long term subsidies to a market draw in alot of buisness. The problem is when you stop giving out the subsidies(let interest rates rise), all the buisness dependant on subsidies will suffer and some will go under.
This cycle of boom and bust because of interest rate manipulation is called the buisness cycle. It’s not a concept I read from a “lefty blog”.
One thing to realize is that the fed exist to stabilize the economy under the massive amount to debt financing the federal government does. Since federal liability become fractional reserve deposits, and the federal government racks up so much liability, this must be managed. Politicians are for the most part economically retarded, and history more examples of societies falling because of monetary policy that foreign invasion. A central bank can help stabilize an economy under massive debt financing.
It would also be nice if the federal government ever stopped endlessly expanding their debt, then we wouldn’t need a central bank.
9. Kahn | January 15th, 2008 at 8:36 am
“financially irresponsible idiots.”, jane, I thought that was your new signature.
In Al Gores book, he calls for sky high oil prices to FORCE change. Liberal wackos here, as part of your religion insist that bio-fuel and sunlight will make everything all right. Your party has closed 80% of the coast to oil exploration/production and refused to let drilling commence in Alaska - where we know there’s oil. The cost of energy is one of the major factors affecting the economy. And YOU my friends have helped drive it high.
I took this course in college. maybe you’ve heard of it? It was called ECONOMICS? They have this concept called Supply and demand. And in this case inelastic demand applied to supply. Read up on it sometime.
10. neocon | January 15th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Anarchist,
Good. But debt is a useful instrument when managed well (I am also in agreement that it hasn’t been managed all that well), especially by an entity such as a country that has an endless life cycle. A good guage of how well that debt is managed is by the percentage comparison to GDP.
http://www.presidentialdebt.org/
While GDP has increased greatly over the last eight years, uncontrolled spending threatens the markets, and the debt as a percentage is too high, however not completely out of line when compared to past Presidency’s. Clintons economy ran very high debt to GDP ratios for his first six years and that was at a time of relative calm. Factor in 9/11 and Katrina and the higher debt makes a little more sense.
11. Rana Quijotesca | January 15th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Why is my comment awaiting moderation? That’s the first time that that has happened
12. Kahn | January 15th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Rana, did it have a few links in it? That happens when I do that.
13. Jim Oliver | January 15th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Whoa
haven’t posted in a long time, but I gotta ask, Mark–Obama is proposing a tax cut, which you oppose? Since when do you oppose tax cuts?
14. Kahn | January 15th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Jim, he’s proposing a tax cut to people who don’t actually pay taxes. Ya see, the less you make - the less you pay. This is a wealth/income redistribution plan.
When a one time money distribution tactic has been tried in the past, they’ve invariably failed. They do BUY votes though. They DO work for that.
15. Jim Oliver | January 15th, 2008 at 10:29 am
150 million workers don’t pay taxes? According to who?
16. Joe | January 15th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Kahn,
Let’s just think about this……..
Not all people making over $200k own businesses and employ people. These people tend to have decent savings. If they get a tax cut/rebate/whatever, what will they do? Add to their savings.
People making less than $100k tend to be living paycheck to paycheck. They also tend to have limited savings. If they get a tax cut/rebate/whatever, what will they do? Go out and buy a big TV, applicance, take a vacation, whatever else. Even if it pay off some credit cards, those credit cards will then get used to buy things. When people buy things, businesses grow. Those businesses are what hire people.
So I understand this is about what you people think as “buying votes”, but you made the comment in post #14 about “less you make - the less you pay.”
Why is this tax cut/rebate/whatever getting talked about? Because this country is in or damn close to a recession. This is not “buying votes”, this is talking about ways to stimulate the economy.
17. TiredofLibBullShit | January 15th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Joe,
“Not all people making over $200k own businesses and employ people. These people tend to have decent savings. If they get a tax cut/rebate/whatever, what will they do? Add to their savings.”
been listening to the libs again?
These people would most likely be INVESTING and SPENDING this money. They purchase high end items and also strengthen a company through investment. This tired old talking point about burying THEIR money in savings is for the simple minded buffoons, such as yourself.
Your whole post reeks of Clinton’s famous ASSumption…….that people aren’t smart enough to do the spend their tax cut right. For the only carefully targeted tax cut he passed.
This is income redistribution (buying votes) plain and simple. thank you for becoming the next USEFUL IDIOT to grace this blog.
18. Sunny | January 15th, 2008 at 11:21 am
In Al Gores book, he calls for sky high oil prices to FORCE change.
Kahn | January 15th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Kahn, I have heard extreme conservatives call for the same thing.
19. anarchist | January 15th, 2008 at 11:27 am
neocon, it isn’t the debt itself that I’m talking about, although that’s very related. It’s the fed buying that debt with checkbook money or monetizing debt. This acts as a hidden tax or subsidy to certain groups of people.
When the government buys stuff, or creates debt, or tax cuts/raises or whatever, this is usually referred to as fiscal policy, when the fed buys and sells currency for debt this is called fiscal policy. Fiscal and monetary policy decisions although do effect eachother.
Monetary policy is the current policy being used to stave off any coming recession.
This is a fiscal policy recomendation.
Now I’ll talk to you and joe at the same time.
Recessions are caused because when you lower the interest rates, savings decrease and investments increase. It’s this divergance of real savings that causes recessions, investments can only continue as long as inflation continues to expand. So an economic stimulus package that encourages consumption will do nothing. The recession will be over when real savings matches real investment, this plan does nothing to adress that.
So in my personal anaylsis, besides the fact that this plan will increase debt, which may help to delay the recession(a bad thing in my opinion), it really does nothing to adress the fundamental causes of economic recessions. However, for a democrat’s economic stimulus package, I actually like it, and I can’t say that very often.
In the end, a recession is unavoidable, it’s just a matter of when it comes, as long as we manipulate interest rate, bubbles will occur. And in my opinion the sooner the better. Recession is just the economy re-structuring itself to serve consumer prefrence rather than following government credit subsidies.
20. TiredofLibBullShit | January 15th, 2008 at 11:30 am
The best way to stimulate an economy is for the government to stop syphoning cash out of it, through confiscatory taxes.
Can you think of some aspect of your life that is not taxed (other than breathing and sex)?
I mean we have:
Income taxes
soc security taxes
sales taxes
energy taxes
fuel taxes
communication taxes
transportation taxes
waste taxes
recycling taxes
service taxes
death taxes
property taxes
tobacco taxes
alcohol taxes
pollution taxes
import taxes
export taxes
inventory taxes
taxes to pay for the Spanish American War (my personal favorite)
etc etc etc
then there are:
bridge tolls
highway tolls
inspection fees
permit fees
license fees
911 fees
etc etc etc
There is a government tax or fee on almost every human activity, service, etc etc. Politicians keep licking their chops to find more ways to separate us from our money and keep themselves in power.
Wake up people. The government is not the solution - it is the problem. And to vote for those individuals who think that government is the be all, end all are asking for more problems and not solutions.
21. Joe | January 15th, 2008 at 11:35 am
BullShit… I mean TiredofLibBullShit…
These people would most likely be INVESTING and SPENDING this money.
The point there is that they are ALREADY investing and spending. So either they will invest more or it goes into a bank and the money doesn’t go anywhere.
Those living paycheck to paycheck would be doing cartwheels in the streets if they got some sort of a rebate/cut or whatever. They would go out an spend it.
Your money goes towards bonuses for the execs and keeps the money in the hands of those of the few. My way goes to the company to supply more goods as more people are buying them. That would add to jobs to MAKE the goods. That would add to money in the economy to be spent on more goods.
“Your whole post reeks of Clinton’s famous ASSumption…”
I could say what your post reeks of, but I don’t want to throw out obscenities. Let’s just say that it is the last 8 letters of your posting name.
22. hermie | January 15th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Wait until they stick you with the ‘carbon tax’, which they’ll stick you with simply for being alive.
23. Kahn | January 15th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Joe - but these plans have been tried before and don’t work. They don’t work, they don’t work, they don’t work. THAT is why we should reject it and see it as nothing but a sham.
Want to stir up the economy (which is not yet in recession, only in “danger” of going into one, jeezzz talk about propaganda)? How about opening up oil fields off the coasts and in Alaska? How about actually allowing nuclear power plants to be built. In California, change that last sentence to “ANY” power plants be built. How about liberals stop standing in the way of wind mill projects (look up Cape Cod).
Out of one side of your mouthes you say -”we are in danger of recession”. But out the other side you attack every single energy solution. Yes - all of them. You don’t like “big business” farm subsidies. You don’t like wind power (no - you don’t, again reference Cape Cod), you don’t want us to use our own oil, you don’t like nuclear. Just what the hell DO you like?
This is a sham and should be treated as such. So much for the “change” promise of Obama.
24. Joe | January 15th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Kahn,
First of all, I am from Boston. I know all about the Cape wind farm. I can tell you that most of the people I know and talk with are FOR the wind farm. I know you people LOVE to blast Kennedy and always bring up his opposition to the Wind Farm. Have you ever looked at MITT ROMNEY’s stance on the Wind Farm?
Who knows… maybe he is for it now that he is a Presidential candidate, but he was against it as much as anyone.
OK… I understand, you are all about energy. Of course if we open up Alaska’s shores to drilling, you do understand that it will be some 10 years before we even see a drop of oil, right? What the hell good is that going to do for us to stave off the recession (or get out of the recession depending on your opinion)? It is going to do squat.
Sure… let’s build more nuclear reactors… again.. what, 5-7 years before it gets us anything???
25. Joe | January 15th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
and by the way… when were they tried and didn’t work?
26. Libsbane | January 15th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Anarchist,
You’re looking at this all wrong, this isn’t a case of monetary induced recession; financial institutions are awash in money. This is a case of discretionary fiscal policy; if the object of the exercise is to forestall or eliminate a recession then re-calibrating the established automatic fiscal stabilizers is the key, as opposed to cumbersome long term changes (temporary or permanent) to tax policy, or discretionary or mandate spending.
You’re arguing for a long-term fiscal solution to debt and the system is eagerly awaiting a quick fiscal response to an economic downturn (cyclical). Here’s a better solution (I look forward to Bush suggesting the following):
1) A tax rebate of a uniform amount not targeted and not specific to amount paid in the previous year. Joe has a point; the only way a rebate works is if it is spent immediately!
2) Federal assistance to State run programs like food stamps and unemployment compensation. The Federal government should suspend State payments to Federal projects and permit the States to increase (temporarily) benefits to recipients provided this is what the States do with the money.
3) Stop this nonsense regarding bailing out bad borrowers and stupid credit decisions. This is an outgrowth of the fiscal problem, not the fiscal problem itself. Let the houses go to foreclosure and don’t drive up the deficit on credit risk individuals. don’t turn a credit market problem into a government sponsored bad-behavior approval program.
“Recessions are caused because when you lower the interest rates, savings decrease and investments increase. It’s this divergance (sic) of real savings that causes recessions, investments can only continue as long as inflation continues to expand. So an economic stimulus package that encourages consumption will do nothing. The recession will be over when real savings matches real investment, this plan does nothing to address that.”
Recessions are a result of economic output, not savings or interest. By definition, investment and consumption increase economic output and stimulate the economy out of recession (or prevents one). More likely if the Fed were to allow the money supply to grow too slowly and keep interest rates above the level needed to maintain a steady rate of growth a recession would be the outcome. Higher interest rates cause withholding of funds from the consumption side as well as encouraging savings thereby withholding funds from the market. This can lead to households and businesses not circulating funds resulting in to plant closures and job losses. Consumption is the key as it increases demand and by extension supply.
27. Libsbane | January 15th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Kahn,
You’re looking for long term solutions to the economic health of the nation and by extension the rest of the world; Admirable but not bloody likely from the democrats in Congress.
The ideals you espouse are conservative, correct, and will have no impact on a possible recession this year; they may prevent future recessions, but 2008 is not the recipient of the fiscal responsibility you proffer. Better to support Romney and fight for fiscally responsible business-friendly representatives than expect any such thing in the short term.
The effectiveness of an economic stimulus package is the Administrative and legislative branches acting quickly to put money in the hands of the consumer before we have any negative growth; the Republicans blew their chance in 1999 by not working with Clinton, and Clinton blew it by not offering anything the Congress found palatable. (Actually, Clinton offered nothing.) Partisanship may prevent Bush and Congress from acting now, I hope they both understand the ramifications if they don’t act; it is not to the democrats advantage to allow a recession; democrats don’t vote when they become focused on living paycheck to paycheck. It is not to the republicans’ advantage, republicans don’t vote when they become discouraged. Low voter turnout doesn’t favor either side anymore.
28. anarchist | January 15th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
“You’re looking at this all wrong, this isn’t a case of monetary induced recession; financial institutions are awash in money” - Libsbane
Huh? What’s all this I’m reading about some sort of “credit crunch” and liquidity problems of big name financial institutions?
But I wasn’t really arguing a long term solution rather than I was adressing the fundamental cause of recessions.
I completely agree with you the worst thing the government can do is start bailing out anyone in the housing market. But you have to realize credit expansion IS a bailout of financial instutions. I have a pretty extremist position, if your buisness can’t survive without subsidies, then it doesn’t deserve to survive. This includes the subsidy of cheap credit.
“Recessions are a result of economic output, not savings or interest. By definition, investment and consumption increase economic output and stimulate the economy out of recession (or prevents one)” - Libsbane.
Economic output is a function of savings, which itself is a function of interest. Economic output is a function of investment, which itself a function of interest. When you don’t manipulate interest rates, savings and investment equilibriate, when you manipulate rates they diverge. When you artificially lower interest rates, savings reduces and investment increases, that’s why buisnesses that rely on large amounts of credit cannot continiously boom under artificial credit, the real savings is not there.
“More likely if the Fed were to allow the money supply to grow too slowly and keep interest rates above the level needed to maintain a steady rate of growth a recession would be the outcome” - Libsbane
That’s what I said, but in my opinion that’s a good thing in the long run. Of course I realize I take the minority view of economist.
“Higher interest rates cause withholding of funds from the consumption side as well as encouraging savings thereby withholding funds from the market. This can lead to households and businesses not circulating funds resulting in to plant closures and job losses. Consumption is the key as it increases demand and by extension supply.” - Libsbane
So where I say that investment is artificially high, you say make consumption artificially high to make up for it. I say lets bring on the recessions and let the markets clear and re-organize themselves more on consumer prefrence rather than chasing around newly printed dollars.
But really you’re coming more from a Keynesian, monetarist perspective and I’m coming more from Real Buisness Cycle and Austrian theory, so we could turn this into a long debate.
29. Libsbane | January 15th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
We could, indeed. But, let’s not forget that the subject is the economic stimulus package designed to prevent a recession. You are suggesting that a recession is somehow good for the economy and I’m suggesting (as is every economist, realist, human, and sentient being on the planet) that a recession is not necessary, counter-productive, harmful, hurtful and generally unwanted.
The reason we have a Federal Reserve is to stabilize monetary policy and make funds available at rates conducive to economic growth and stability. Withholding funds through draconian monetary policy in an effort to shake out the markets is precisely what turned a recession in Hoover’s Administration into a Depression in Roosevelt’s. This has nothing whatever to do with money supply and (unless you’re Ron *buffoon* Paul and think we’re already in recession) the idea that the Fed is printing money in some Rasputin-inspired conspiracy is a quaint throwback to the 1970’s gold-standard argument.
30. anarchist | January 15th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
“The reason we have a Federal Reserve is to stabilize monetary policy and make funds available at rates conducive to economic growth and stability. Withholding funds through draconian monetary policy in an effort to shake out the markets is precisely what turned a recession in Hoover’s Administration into a Depression in Roosevelt’s” - Libsbane
No actually the depression was proceeded by manipulation of the money supply. There where a bunch of unbacked paper dollars printed to fund WWI and from 1928 till 1930, 1/3 of the money supply was destroyed so that we could go back on a real gold standard. We did so much stuff during the great depression, even made gold illegial, and it still lingered for 10 years.
Also during Reagan we had a recession as bad as the great depressions, and under much criticism Reagan did litterally nothing and we where out in 2 years.
And if you don’t like the term “printing money”, you can use monetizing debt.
And what about the manipulation of short term rates to almost 1%!!! Housing may be based on long term rates but theres alot of interconnectivity between the short and long parts of the yield curve. banks can access cheap short-term money and ride the yield curve very profitably. as an example, after september 11 the extremely cheap short-term money made it very profitable to borrow at 1% and buy long-bonds. the buying pressure on bonds sent long-yields to thirty year lows. mortgages are priced off the long end of the yield curve.
31. anarchist | January 15th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
also in addition to the increasing in the housing market due to “carry trade”, where did the problems start to show up first. That’s right in the ARM mortgages.
32. anarchist | January 15th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Sorry for the triple post, I need to learn to use the preview button.
But the first sentence is missing a coma making it misleading.
No actually the depression was proceeded by manipulation of the money supply. There where a bunch of unbacked paper dollars printed to fund WWI, and from 1928 till 1930, 1/3 of the money supply was destroyed so that we could go back on a real gold standard.
33. Dasein Libsbane | January 15th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
“a Keynesian, monetarist” ?????
Is that anything like a diminutive giant?
I’m far too busy to discuss the matter further; the State’s Budget is due in February. But, your assessment about the Great Depression is over-simplistic , the recession and Reagan’s fiscal policy is wrong, and your statement that “Economic output is a function of savings, ” is factually wrong. None of those things have anything to do with the subject of the thread, so I’ll bid you adieu.
Double Post?
34. Hillary Clinton » O&hellip | January 15th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
[...] The Liberty Lounge Political Forums wrote an interesting post today on Obama Outbids Hillary to Purchase VotesHere’s a quick excerpt…would be financed by deficit spending, is slightly larger than the $110 billion package advocated by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday. [...]
35. Barack Obama » Obam&hellip | January 15th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
[...] San Francisco Sentinel wrote an interesting post today on Obama Outbids Hillary to Purchase VotesHere’s a quick excerptBarack Obama unveiled an economic stimulus package costing up to $120 billion. … Obama, a senator from Illinois, called on the government to make [...]
36. Tractatus | January 15th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Its like they think there’s a Magic Money Spigot which will endlessly produce cash at no cost.
Or, as Bush calls it, “China.”
Just amazing that in 2008 there can still be people this economically illiterate…
I know–why are you supply-siders still hewing to your failure of a theory, anyway?
By the way, I trust you righteously slammed Bush for his “grossly irresponsible” $300 tax rebate of 2001. Oh, wait…no I don’t. You’re a raging hypocrite, so I’m sure you lauded Bush for his generosity and brilliant economic thought.
37. TiredofLibBullShit | January 15th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Joe blathers on…..
“The point there is that they are ALREADY investing and spending. So either they will invest more or it goes into a bank and the money doesn’t go anywhere.”
Doesn’t go anywhere????
“Those living paycheck to paycheck would be doing cartwheels in the streets if they got some sort of a rebate/cut or whatever. They would go out an spend it.”
“Your money goes towards bonuses for the execs and keeps the money in the hands of those of the few. My way goes to the company to supply more goods as more people are buying them. That would add to jobs to MAKE the goods. That would add to money in the economy to be spent on more goods.”
Wow, so many Democrat talking points, so little logic. Your way has short term effect, period. Once your “recipients” run out of “rebate” money then its back to “living paycheck to paycheck”. A real help there. Do people “living paycheck to paycheck” create jobs? pay people’s salaries?
Nope…face it Joe, the plans are just income redistribution from those who can pay to those who pay little or nothing in income taxes or more accurately from those according to their means to those according to their NEEDS.
“I am from Massachussetts….”
WOW! Explains alot….where did you learn economics? From Comrade Kennedy School of Economics and Investing??? It’s not named the “Peoples Republic of Massachussetts” for nothing.
Pathetic.
38. Kahn | January 15th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Joe - Mitt Romney did not write and get federal law passed making it harder for ALL windmill projects to get done in the whole damn country like Kennedy did. But I expected as much. Single out one small part of my post and attack it. Great. Thanks for your contribution to the solution. Pip.
What POSITIVE things can your leaders come up with? How will you run electric cars, without power plants to charge the batteries? What other times have tax rebates to this strata worked to stimulate the economy to any significant degree? You people are more easily lead around by the nose than a herd of cows.
Think dammit. Your party is in one way or another opposed to EVERY energy solution save solar. You don’t want green house gases, yet you stifle nuclear and wind energy. Never mind that your leadership ignores these ideas themselves and live lavish lifestyles - you actually have no ide how to bridge the gap between your concerns and physical reality.
You want to stimulate the economy - but instead you come up with a socialist “feel good” answer.
You are afraid of global warming - yet you stifle wind and nuclear power.
You say you are for personal freedom - yet you attack the the first and second amendments and refuse people to choose where and how to educate their children.
You say you are for free speech - yet you attack the single neutral (or for sake of argument, the single conservative) news outlet. You seek to remove popular talk radio shows from Armed Forces Radio. You seek to regulate talk radio. You shout down conservative speakers and actually occasionally physically attack them.
You say you are in support of illegal immigrants - yet you use the same socio-economic arguments that slaveholders used to justify their continued illegal status and lower wages. You use similar argument to justify the murder (yes - prove otherwise) of “unborn” children.
You say you “support” the troops - yet we see marchers with F*** the Troops signs, governments refusing Boy Scouts the right to collect sundry supplies for deployed troops, pork inserted into defense spending, recruiters denied access to high schools and college campuses. We also see all news of the war disappear from the airwaves and print media as news turns good. We see you argue for defeat in the face of victory.
You say you want equality - yet you continue to support destructive welfare policies that have sapped the self reliance and energy of a huge segment of our population and lead to the complete disintegration of the family structure. Your answer to the loss of the family is, “it takes a village.” Yet - you offer no village. And now, with a black man poised to actually become president, we see your true colors come to the surface.
What else? Thats enough for now.
39. Kahn | January 15th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Oh - and since the absolute earliest that Obama’s plan could take effect is the 2010 tax season, I would point out AGAIN that this is a sham.
40. FmrMarine | January 15th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Another look at the osama obama agenda
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/01/does_he_or_doesnt_he_msm_notic.html
41. neocon | January 15th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Kahn,
Your #39 post was SPOT ON!!!!!!!!
Brilliant.
42. plainjane | January 15th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
They have this concept called Supply and demand. And in this case inelastic demand applied to supply. Read up on it sometime.Kahn | January 15th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Give us the minutes of the Cheney and oil executives meetings. If they prove there was no collusion to raise prices then you can can talk of sound economic principals.
43. Kahn | January 15th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Thanks plainjane - an unsubstantiated claim based upon lack of information. Just how would increasing oil production off shore and in Alaska decrease supply? You didn’t actually read up on that supply and demand thing, did you?
The entire west coast is liberal and refuses to allow oil exploration. So guess what? It has to come from somewhere. Not close though, and not from Anwar - God forbid. Who stopped that Jane? Republicans? Dick Cheney? Dick Cheney controls the House and Senate? He controls the state legislatures in California, Oregon, and Washington????
What a ridiculous and retarded argument.
I did ask you to think. I guess it was too hard. Poor baby. I guess a mindless hate chant from six years ago was easier.
Thanks neo, it must have been that one extra cup of coffee this morning.
44. LNC | January 16th, 2008 at 2:58 am
Oh, puh-leeze. What in the world would a ONE TIME (okay, maybe TWO times if the economy tanks) gift of $250 do for anyone. Even imagining that it got spent on something important (like food) vs. something frivolous (like an i-pod), that money would be gone in a month. There would be no long-term benefit for the recipients.
Ever heard the saying that goes something like: “Give a man to fish, and you feed him for a day … teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime” This plan is exactly that.
And, if the economy does tank, and therefore everyone is making less money, and less money is coming into the government via taxes… how exactly are they going to fund that second stimulus package? If you take yet more money out of the investment sector, the economic machine slows down, which means fewer jobs and smaller wages for those with jobs. In the end, the recipients of the $250 would likely be worse off, because they are the ones most vulnerable to shrinking job markets and reduced payrolls.
45. TiredofLibBullShit | January 16th, 2008 at 5:42 am
“Oh, puh-leeze. What in the world would a ONE TIME (okay, maybe TWO times if the economy tanks) gift of $250 do for anyone.”
Why, buy a vote from a USEFUL IDIOT, of course!
These USEFUL IDIOTS believe that INVESTMENTS go straight to executives in the form of bonuses! They also believe that money that is invested only benefits a FEW (the rich).
These are the same tired old talking points that came from the Clintons when pressured to give a tax cut. That tax cut was carefully targeted and only given to those who would most likely vote DEMOCRAT. And, the arrogant statements that we didn’t know how to spend our tax cut, was another excuse for the careful target and control of it.
The same ones that these so-called “Economic Stimulus” packages are intended. The USEFUL IDIOTS will swallow this hook, line and sinker will little thought as to its bare short term little benefit as evidenced by their ignorant posts.
46. Joe | January 16th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Kahn/LibBS,
From the paper today:
So talk all you want about energy and such, but the point is to stimulate the economy, you give it to those that will spend it. The point of this post was that Obama is BUYING votes. That is not true. It is a stimulus package to try and stave off the potential oncoming recession.
47. Kahn | January 16th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Well yah Britt - but look at the votes. Look who blocked ANWAR.
And well, yah - PART of the Gulf is open. Part of it is. And yes, it’s where we get some of our oil. But the east coast is closed, the west coast is closed, and part of the Gulf is closed. AND you guys are opposed to nuclear. AND you’ve all but killed wind. AND you hate coal. AND you don’t really want anymore hydro-electric projects.
So? What is your plan? How are you going to power those electric cars?
Thanks though for trying to take a single part of my post to task. You failed, but you did prove a point I made above when plane faced jane tried it. You have ONLY anger. You have ONLY hatred. But you have NO plan.
48. Kahn | January 19th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Brett - first off, I was using the plural “you”. Second off, well yes - the plural you liberals are against nuclear. Don’t like it? Stop being Democrat.
And um, first timer? Man - you are weird. GFY